Comment on the following document

Comment on the following document
EAE 0422 A
Spiro Agnew, “The Dangers of Constant
Carnival”, Address at Pennsylvania Republican Dinner,
Harrisburg, October 30, 1969.
Code Sujet
http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/108/111235/ch29_a4_d2.pdf
5
CCV
Sujet Jury
Sujet
Candidat
A little over a week ago, I took a rather unusual step for a Vice President. I said something.
Particularly, I said something that was predictably unpopular with the people who would like to
run the country without the inconvenience of seeking public office. I said I did not like some of
the things I saw happening in this country. I criticized those who encouraged government by
street carnival and suggested it was time to stop the carousel.
It appears that by slaughtering a sacred cow I triggered a holy war. I have no regrets. I do not
intend to repudiate my beliefs, recant my words, or run and hide.
10
15
What I said before, I will say again. It is time for the preponderant majority, the responsible
citizens of this country, to assert their rights. It is time to stop dignifying the immature actions
of arrogant, reckless, inexperienced elements within our society. The reason is compelling. It is
simply that their tantrums are insidiously destroying the fabric of American democracy.
By accepting unbridled protest as a way of life, we have tacitly suggested that the great issues of
our times are best decided by posturing and shouting matches in the streets. America today is
drifting toward Plato’s classic definition of a degenerating democracy—a democracy that permits
the voice of the mob to dominate the affairs of government.
Last week I was lambasted for my lack of “mental and moral sensitivity.” I say that any leader
who does not perceive where persistent street struggles are going to lead this nation lacks
mental acuity. And any leader who does not caution this nation on the danger of this direction
lacks moral strength.
20
25
30
35
I believe in Constitutional dissent. I believe in the people registering their views with their
elected representatives, and I commend those people who care enough about their country to
involve themselves in its great issues. I believe in legal protest within the Constitutional limits of
free speech, including peaceful assembly and the right of petition. But I do not believe that
demonstrations, lawful or unlawful, merit my approval or even my silence where the purpose is
fundamentally unsound. In the case of the Vietnam Moratorium, the objective announced by the
leaders—immediate unilateral withdrawal of all our forces from Vietnam—was not only unsound
but idiotic. The tragedy was that thousands who participated wanted only to show a fervent
desire for peace, but were used by the political hustlers who ran the event.
It is worth remembering that our country’s founding fathers wisely shaped a Constitutional
republic, not a pure democracy. The representative government they contemplated and skillfully
constructed never intended that elected officials should decide crucial questions by counting the
number of bodies cavorting in the streets. They recognized that freedom cannot endure
dependent upon referendum every time part of the electorate desires it.
So great is the latitude of our liberty that only a subtle line divides use from abuse. I am
convinced that our preoccupation with emotional demonstration, frequently crossing the line to
civil disruption and even violence could inexorably lead us across that line forever.
Sujet
Page Sujet
40
45
50
ELT
2/2
Ironically, it is neither the greedy nor the malicious but the self-righteous who are guilty of
history’s worst atrocities. Society understands greed and malice and erects barriers of law to
defend itself from these vices. But evil cloaked in emotional causes is well disguised and often
undiscovered until it is too late.
We have just such a group of self-proclaimed saviors of the American soul at work today.
Relentless in their criticism of intolerance in America, they themselves are intolerant of those
who differ with their views. In the name of academic freedom, they destroy academic freedom.
Denouncing violence, they seize and vandalize buildings of great universities. Fiercely
expressing their respect for truth, they disavow the logic and discipline necessary to pursue
truth.
They would have us believe that they alone know what is good for America—what is true and
right and beautiful. They would have us believe that their reflexive action is superior to our
reflective action; that their revealed righteousness is more effective than our reason and
experience.
Think about it. Small bands of students are allowed to shut down great universities. Small
groups of dissidents are allowed to shout down political candidates. Small cadres of professional
protesters are allowed to jeopardize the peace efforts of the President of the United States.
55
60
It is time to question the credentials of their leaders. And, if in questioning we disturb a few
people, I say it is time for them to be disturbed. If, in challenging, we polarize the American
people, I say it is time for a positive polarization.
It is time for a healthy in-depth examination of policies and a constructive realignment in this
country. It is time to rip away the rhetoric and to divide on authentic lines. It is time to discard
the fiction that in a country of 200 million people, everyone is qualified to quarterback the
government.
For too long we have accepted superficial categorization— young versus old, white versus black,
rich versus poor. Now it is time for an alignment based on principles and values shared by all
citizens regardless of age, race, creed, or income. This, after all, is what America is all about.
(…)